Commerce Wrongly Rescinded Administrative Review, Millwork Exporter Says
The Commerce Department unlawfully rescinded an administrative review, falsely determining that an exporter hadn't made any U.S. sales during the period being examined, the exporter said in April 19 motion for judgment (China Cornici Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00217).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Exporters China Cornici and RaoPing HongRong Handicrafts, which sell products covered under antidumping duty orders on wood mouldings and millwork from China, also said Commerce had failed to clarify that Chen Chui, RaoPing’s trading company, was entitled to the same de minimis rate RaoPing received in an earlier separate rate review.
RaoPing received separate rate status because it showed it was trading through Chui, which is based in Taiwan, the brief said. It explained that RaoPing didn't say on its questionnaire responses that it was doing business through Chui, but that it essentially is; the trading company makes sales in the U.S. on behalf of RaoPing and submits the entry paperwork for incoming shipments, which come directly from RaoPing.
The exporter said it documented each step of its supply chain for Commerce during the review. However, the department still refused its request to clarify that Chui was also supposed to receive RaoPing’s rate. Because of that, Chui was forced to enter shipments under the 220.87% China-wide rate.
Cornici, meanwhile, challenged Commerce’s decision to rescind an administrative review of its products. The department may only do so under three circumstances, none of which apply, it said: First, when an exporter or producer withdraws its review request; second, if the department itself initiated the review; and third, if Commerce determined during the course of review that no subject merchandise was entered, exported or sold during the period of review.
The department claimed the third scenario for its rescission. But Cornici did export merchandise during the period of review, and its U.S. importer paid AD/CVD duties on those entries, the brief said.
Commerce knew that Cornici was in court challenging the designation of its subject entries when it revoked the review, it said. “The government has on one hand (Commerce) claimed that no subject entries were made by China Cornici, but with the other hand (CBP) it has pocketed duties paid on those entries by its U.S. importer,” it said.